Rhode Island’s charter school debate has intensified again. With a new three-year moratorium on new or expanded charters in place through 2028–29, families, educators, and policymakers are wrestling with a core question: do charter schools provide valuable alternatives that improve student performance where traditional districts struggle, or do they undermine the broader public education system by pulling away students and resources? This article presents both perspectives in good faith, aiming for common ground in a conversation that too often becomes polarized.

The case for targeted charter schools (Craig Evans)

It’s my opinion that charter schools should not be considered a wholesale replacement for traditional public schools but a necessary tool for districts where student outcomes are persistently low. Rhode Island’s core cities (Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls and Woonsocket) consistently post some of the weakest proficiency rates in the state. In those communities, well-run charters deliver better outcomes, particularly in elementary and middle grades, even while serving higher percentages of low-income students, students of color, and multilingual learners.

In Bristol-Warren the interest in charter schools has been minimal with estimates of only 20-30 students attending 4-5 different schools. The demand for CTE options outside of Mt Hope High School has seen a similar number (nearly 30) students. Parochial and private school attendance by school aged children of all ages residing in Bristol-Warren school district far surpasses any other alternative schools. Recent annual estimates are 200-300 students.

While another charter school near Bristol-Warren is nothing I would support (The Highlander in Warren should remain for few years even though the building has been sold), I do support the concept for others for the following reasons:

Performance and innovation: Many Rhode Island charters, including networks like Achievement First and Blackstone Valley Prep, have shown notable academic growth in independent studies and state data. They benefit from greater autonomy in curriculum, staffing, and scheduling, allowing them to innovate in ways district schools sometimes cannot.

Parent demand: Thousands of families apply for limited charter seats each year, with lotteries determining access. This demand is strongest in underperforming districts, suggesting charters fill a genuine need rather than siphoning students from strong suburban systems.

Limited scope: Charters currently serve only about 8 to 10% of RI public school students. Supporters believe they should be approved and renewed based on clear performance metrics — expanding only where they demonstrably improve outcomes for the students they serve, not as a universal solution.

Equity angle: For families in failing districts, a high-quality charter can be a lifeline. Denying that option locks children into schools that have failed to improve for decades.

The pro-charter view in Bristol-Warren and similar suburban districts is more restrained: charters may not be needed locally where baseline performance is stronger, but they should remain available as one tool among many (including CTE program expansion and district-led improvements).

The case against charter schools (Mike Proto)

I congratulate our legislature and governor for their recent decision to put a 3-year moratorium on charter school expansion in Rhode Island, and the reasons for my opposition to the expansion of charter schools are numerous, with the primary reason being money. Rhode Island public school systems are chronically underfunded due to voters who do not believe in the value of strong public education, penny pinching politicians who are constantly cutting school budgets, and policymakers at the federal level who in recent years have drastically cut federal education aid to states such as Rhode Island.

In addition, charter schools have no elected school board or school committee oversight, their teachers are paid substandard wages and do not have union representation and job security, and charter schools funnel away money from traditional public schools at a time when the student population nationwide is declining due to lower birth rates and putting a greater strain on public education.

And while most Rhode Island parents appear to be quite satisfied with the quality of public education in our state, there are always a handful of malcontents who think charter schools are the cure for every ill in today’s public education system.

Points of common ground

Despite our sharp differences, several areas of potential agreement exist:

Student outcomes must come first: Both of us want Rhode Island children to succeed. Any school — charter or traditional — that consistently fails students should face strong accountability.
Targeted, not unlimited, expansion: Charters may have a role in the districts with the most chronic underperformance, but blanket growth across the state (including in already solid districts like those on the East Bay) is unnecessary.

Transparency and fair funding: Improving data on per-pupil costs, student growth (not just proficiency), and fiscal impacts could reduce mistrust. Both sides could support better tracking of how choice programs (charters, CTE inter-district choice, private/parochial) affect district budgets.

Focus on what works: Successful practices from high-performing charters (longer school days, strong school culture, data-driven instruction) could be adopted more widely in traditional schools. Meanwhile, districts should have more flexibility to innovate without needing charter status.

Declining enrollment reality: Rhode Island must address overall shrinking student populations thoughtfully rather than pitting public school models against each other.

Moving forward

Charter schools are neither a silver bullet nor an existential threat — they are one policy tool with real strengths and real limitations. In districts where traditional schools have struggled for years to raise performance, targeted charters can offer families meaningful alternatives and pressure the system to improve. In districts that are already performing adequately, the case for new charters is much weaker.

A constructive path forward would evaluate each charter proposal on its individual merits, with rigorous performance standards, demographic balance requirements, and transparent funding formulas that minimize disruption to sending districts. At the same time, the state and districts must continue aggressive efforts to strengthen traditional public schools for most students.

What do you, our readers think? Where should Rhode Island draw the line between healthy choice and harmful fragmentation? Readers are encouraged to engage respectfully, sharing comments by emailing us at: commongroundeastbayri@gmail.com.

The Common Ground column has been created to provide readers a thorough examination of issues important to the Bristol community. While often having different opinions, Craig Evans’ and Mike Proto’s passion for improving the dialogue during these partisan times has brought them together in the search for common ground.